Which makes our job so much easier, since writing about leftist idiocy would be so much harder if they ever exhibited any signs of cerebral activity whatsoever.

Such as when the to the left of Stalin Mother Jones discovered that Nebraska just decided to teach their school children, as part of the curriculum, that the United KKKStates of KKKamerica isn’t the most unlivable, horrid, backwards never-ending hell that leftist swine that the Obogorrhoid anencephelatics nevertheless refuse to leave, in spite of numerous promises to do just that every time one of their pet Stalinist causes is in the slightest bit threatened.

Nebraska Kids to Learn America Is Awesome, Climate Change Is Just a Theory

We mean, seriously? What the fuck, OVER? That horrible bitter clinger useless (unless leftist hipster douchebag Ogabe voters want something to eat) state is actually teaching their kids that being born an American is NOT automatically a crime against humanity? “Pride” is obviously only good if it’s pride in something that nobody in their right minds would want to be proud about, to the leftist Democrat Socialist voter.

Students in Nebraska are getting new standards for social studies curriculum, after weeks of intense debate. The state Board of Education reached agreement on two items of controversy this week: whether to include “American exceptionalism”

Something that has been derided and thus officially declared doubleplusUNgood by the left’s “lord and savior” (their words, not ours), Brrrrarrrghhh Hussein BlightBringer. And thus it is “controversial”, a word that socialist propaganda outlets use when they really want to say “act of treason that ought to be punished by death from having a blue plastic bag tied over your head.”

But that’s not ALL. It gets even WORSE. Those counter-revolutionary heretics against “lord and savior” Brrrrarrrghhh Hussein BlightBringer are ALSO questioning the “settled science”, which is something the socialist propaganda outlets use when they really want to say “accepted religion of our one and true god, Brrrarrgh Hussein BlightBringer”, of Global CoolingGlobal Warming Climate Change.

“Questioning” it as in pointing out that it is merely a theory, which is giving it a heck of a lot more credit than its due since it is wholly unsupported by any facts whatsoever. The bit about mankind being the cause of it, that is. Which is sort of essential to the Trans National Socialist extremists currently benefiting from numerous idiots on the right helping them out by merely calling them “liberals”, something they never have been and never ever will be.

But the “right” keeps yielding to their word games because they’re nadless wankers who are more afraid of the consequences of calling a spade a spade than they are of seeing our nation destroyed.

Yes, the climate changes. NEWSFLASH: It has been changing since the day the planet was born. Ever heard of the ice ages? They weren’t made to go away by mammoths driving Cadillac Escalades or inventing coal power plants. Somehow that happened all on its own.

The QUESTION is whether those changes have anything to do with what we puny bipedals do or don’t do. And when it became obvious to anybody who actually knows what science IS that there was not even one smidgen of correlation between the actions of mankind and those changes, “Anthropogenic Global Warming” as in “mankind heating the planet up” became, overnight, “Climate Change.”

Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Your “theory” turns out to be utter bullshit so you just change the wording a bit, just enough that it makes absolutely no meaning at all. If it rains more, it’s “climate change”. If it rains less, it’s “climate change”. If it gets warmer, it’s “climate change”. If it gets colder, as it has been for quite a few years now, it’s “climate change.” We could go on for another 793 pages.

Let’s not do that. It would be almost as boring and futile as sitting through every speech of Brrarrrghhh Hussein BlighBringer’s in order to find a simple sign of intelligence.

Let us, instead, come up with our own example.

We’ll posit the hypothesis that Paul Krugman columns cool the planet.

30 years ago, the planet was warmer. Now Paul Krugman can’t keep his mouth shut, and for a decade and a half we’ve endured stagnant and dropping global temperatures.

Ergo, we need to shut that bug-eyed, moon-faced cretin down or we’ll all freeze to death.

Of course, “denialists” might now point out that a lot of the planet was frozen over before he was even spawned, but that doesn’t matter. We’ll just change it from “global cooling” to “changes in the weather.” Ha! Take that, denialists!

Or we could just stuff a sweaty jock strap in his worthless yap on general principle, but we digress.

And Nebraska DARES point out facts? The HORROR!

If you think this is over the top, read the comments at the link. We’re fair certain that The Stupid™ there is approaching critical mass.

But let’s not point out that the enemy is a gaggle of imbeciles, because that would be “uncivil”. Let’s instead “compromise” with The Stupid™, let’s voluntarily lobotomize ourselves, because only by becoming as stupid as they are can we truly “win.”

Just ask Bill Kristol and Karl Rove.

Then punch them in the face and force them to pick up their teeth with broken fingers.

I have one word….NEBRASKA….seriously. They have, what, a tornado or six a year? (I kid…tornado alley!!) I did a project using the PCC looking at sun spots and major storms…actually, there was a correlation between solar flares, sunspots and storms here on Earth.LC Draco recently posted..Message from Army Ranger Mojo Inc., 501(c)3

Things are getting volatile in PA. There are demands for the death penalty for the savages who shot a woman for telling them to get jobs when they tried to mooch cigarettes. Now who taught these miscreants such barbaric behavior?

the new york times tried to whip up some glow bull worming during the drought during the 30′s but then the drought ended and so did glow bull worming.this was the dust bowl era and it was a natural phenomenon that effected all 48 states but ended just before ww11.it gave us the hottest year ever for the usa-1934- and man had nothing to do with it but poor soil management cause a lot of erosion.one volcano that blows up puts more co2 and particulates into the atmosphere that all of our activities just look at what happened when tambora when it blew up in 1815.it gave us the year with out summer in 1816 and millions starved because of it.but it did not cause glow bull worming,it caused glow bull cooling which is bad while warming is good so is co2.right now we are at one of the lowest levels of co2 ever which is not good because our life is based on the carbon,oxygen cycle.more co2 is better than low co2!

Students in Nebraska are getting new standards for social studies curriculum, after weeks of intense debate. The state Board of Education reached agreement on two items of controversy this week: whether to include “American exceptionalism”

The last I looked the laws of gravity was a theory also. Yet, there it is.

Now you don’t have to be a rocket scientist or even a meteorologist to realize that we ARE experiencing a “climate change”. Hell, even the gas pump jockeys in Oregon have enough sense to have figured that one out. I think we’ve gone beyond the “theory” stage on this one.

We ARE experiencing a “climate change”. That is an indisputable fact.

The “theory” part of the equation is what is causing it. If you were Pat Robertson, it would be the gays causing it. But then, it could be part of the Mayan calendar, where we are going to collide with some unseen planet or something. Or my sharks with frickin’ laser beams…

It could be the sun. It could be CO2. It could be natural, and it could be man made. God could be in the process of smiting us dead.

Or it could just be a cyclical pattern that comes around every million years or so.

These are theories, and some have actual scientific basis whereas others are just purely speculation and a couple pulled directly from the ass of insane religious leaders.

It could also be a combination of a couple of things. Obviously, I am going to rule out the religious insanity, and my sharks don’t want to leave the house. So I lean heavily towards a cyclical pattern coupled with activity from the sun, AND the possibility that we aren’t helping matters any with CO2 emissions. (I like to keep an open mind.)

I am certainly not going to listen to the oil company “scientists” and paid hacks to prove to me that this is all a farce, for the same reason I am not going to listen to the tobacco companies tell me that their products are harmless. At the same time, I am not going to put all my eggs in the basket of people who would object to man going back to living in caves and cooking meat over a wood burning fire either. (they wouldn’t want you to disturb the flora, kill animals, or pollute the air)

But hey, what difference does it make? If it is cyclical, and caused by forces beyond our control, what the hell can I do about it? If it can be definitively proven that man is able to cause or change the course of this climate change, then come see me. Otherwise, I will prepare however way I can to weather it out.DJ Allyn recently posted..Somethin’ Stupid ~ Frank and Nancy Sinatra

co2 is a piss poor greenhouse gas because it only blocks 8% of the electromagnetic spectrum and i think the whole idea of man made greenhouse gas is bull shit.we need co2 to survive because it is what makes green thing grow go see the coniferous period.the biggest so called greenhouse gas is water vapor, you know clouds.look up tambora.

Now you don’t have to be a rocket scientist or even a meteorologist to realize that we ARE experiencing a “climate change”. Hell, even the gas pump jockeys in Oregon have enough sense to have figured that one out. I think we’ve gone beyond the “theory” stage on this one.

Since September, I have made numerous trips to Colorado. Flying over the Rocky Mountains on my latest trips I was pretty shocked to see them almost completely bare of any snowfall, that is really going to cause some problems come spring and summer…..and it’s the second year in a row that it has been this dry.

Now is this climate change? I don’t know, but I’d rather listen to the legitimate scientists and oil company experts than the liberal politicians and environmentalists who seek to profit on this crisis. So what do I mean by legitimate? What I mean is that the “experts” who tout the gloom and doom, aka Al Gore and his ilk, the scientists and activists who seek to destroy companies and alter my way of life to fit their ideal, the politicians who run an agenda on this……they are not legitimate. Hell if they can’t even stay true to their own naming convention for it, first calling global cooling then global warming and then the generic climate change, then it tells me that they really don’t know what they are talking about but they still want to push their repressive agenda.

I don’t know, but I’d rather listen to the legitimate scientists and oil company experts than the liberal politicians and environmentalists who seek to profit on this crisis.

I would rather just listen to the legitimate scientists. The oil companies have a profit motive that FAR outstretches any “profit” an environmentalist or politician could ever realize.

For the most part, the scientific community doesn’t really have an axe to grind other than trying to find the truth. The problem is, there are a group of people who simply don’t want to believe their results. [holding up a mirror]

I am not going to pay attention to anyone who has been funded by an oil company for the same reason I am not going to listen to any “experts” paid by the tobacco companies to tell me that cigarettes are harmless.DJ Allyn recently posted..Somethin’ Stupid ~ Frank and Nancy Sinatra

The last I looked the laws of gravity was a theory also. Yet, there it is.
Now you don’t have to be a rocket scientist or even a meteorologist to realize that we ARE experiencing a “climate change”. Hell, even the gas pump jockeys in Oregon have enough sense to have figured that one out. I think we’ve gone beyond the “theory” stage on this one.
We ARE experiencing a “climate change”. That is an indisputable fact.

And here is one definite problem, the misuse of language.

On the one hand, we have “climate change”, meaning “the climate changes”. I would be surprised if you could find anyone who isn’t a complete ignoramus who would say that the climate does not change.

On the other hand, we have a narrative that uses “climate change” as shorthand for “global catastrophic anthropocentric climate change through the agency of carbon dioxide”. This allows them to paint those who debate with them as “climate change deniers”, something that sounds quite looney even without the (deliberate) holocaust denial overtones.

Words have meaning. The purpose of language is to communicate. Narratives like this deliberately seek to confuse the issue, not by reasoned argument, but by exposing one side to simple ad-hominem attacks.

FWIW, my position is similar as DJ’s. We do not know enough. Sort out the issues, stop the ludicrous alarmism, work out what we can do to ameliorate and what we can do to adapt.

I am not going to pay attention to anyone who has been funded by an oil company for the same reason I am not going to listen to any “experts” paid by the tobacco companies to tell me that cigarettes are harmless.

but you are willing to listen to scientists and researchers who are getting paid through grants from environmental or other “climate change” interests?

Make fun of us “hicks” all you want, Draco, but when you go to eat your Banquet tv dinner, or your Nabisco Vanilla Wafers, or any from the Beatrice Foods line, or use any of the Beatrice Foods products, thank ConAgra (headquartered in Omaha, btw) for your sustenance.

On November 27, 2012 ConAgra officials announced they were purchasing Ralcorp, pending Ralcorp shareholder approval, for approximately $4.95 billion dollars. Stockholders of Ralcorp Holdings Inc. would receive $90 dollars per share. The deal is expected to be finished by the end of March, 2013. When done, it will make ConAgra the largest private-label packaged food business in the United States.[4]

I am not going to pay attention to anyone who has been funded by an oil company

But you have no problem listening to so called experts who get their funding from the government or the U.N. to research climate change, because we all know politicians never have an agenda. One thing that never made sense to me is, if it is our fault polluting the air, how is buying “credits” which let you still emit the same amount of greenhouse gases, you just pay more for the privelage to do so, nobody is reducing anything just shifting around money from one corp. to a government body, where they take their cut, and give it to some country who we are ” harming”. Nothing has changed. And think about it this way, if they ever get a ” carbon ” tax, that will in theory give them the power to tax EVERYTHING, since IIRC from science class every living thing is carbon based, you, me, trees, plants, how long before they tax you for breathing, cause you know you are exhaling Co2 so you are contributing to the climate change just by existing.

Enh, whenever a Lefty gets preachy, just throw some Patrick Bateman at them:

“Well, we have to end [Israeli] apartheid for one. And slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people. ”

(Updated to reference Israeli apartheid, since everyone’s cool with the current state of racially repressive government in South Africa)

The oil companies have a profit motive that FAR outstretches any “profit” an environmentalist or politician could ever realize.

So it’s only the *amount* of profit that makes a position biased to the point of untrustworthiness? Ok. Um, you do realize that the government makes more in taxes from the sale of a gallon of gas than does the oil company that extracted, refined, transported, and sold it, right? And where do a lot of the global warming scientists get their funding? The government. Mayhap their credibility might be ever so slightly skewed.

And that doesn’t even begin to get into errors like having models which assume infinitely think atmospheres, confusing “climate” with “weather,” or how the same people now saying that the planet is warming unsustainably were arguing in the 80s that we causing the planet to go into another ice age (and were even advocating painting the polar ice caps black to increase their melt rate as a possible solution). It’s aslo funny that a warming planet is considered “bad,” even though warming would allow for increased growing seasons and make more land arable. Also funny that the folks pitching climate change only want the Western World (and particularly America) to trash their economies to “save” the world, yet have no problem with places like China polluting the ever living fuck out of everything. That last one also kinda tends to undermine their credibility just a tad, too.

I am also leery of schools who publish findings because of who contributes to those departments. For example, the Koch brothers have lately been donating huge sums of money to science departments in order to influence scientific findings that are favorable to their industry. Because of that, the waters get muddied (figuratively and literally) and it becomes really hard to tell what is real any longer.

And sure, that knife cuts both ways. It all depends on who is funding a study or spending money on a science research department.

It is really a shame, considering most people want to expect unbiased truth and not a report that favors whoever is paying them.

The problem is, all the scientists who you would consider “legitimate” have turned out to be less then honest in their “findings” and have used (to put it politely) seriously flawed methodology.

The oil companies have a profit motive that FAR outstretches any “profit” an environmentalist or politician could ever realize.

“Profit” may be a part of it but I think survival is just as much of a motivator, given how the oil companies are being demonized by environmentalists and democrat politicians.

For the most part, the scientific community doesn’t really have an axe to grind other than trying to find the truth.

Oh really? Then why has their “findings” been so laughably wrong and their methodology so inept that it would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.

The problem is, there are a group of people who simply don’t want to believe their results. [holding up a mirror]

No, the problem is, there is a group of people who simply want to believe their results because it fits their ideology. (try turning that mirror around)

I am not going to pay attention to anyone who has been funded by an oil company for the same reason I am not going to listen to any “experts” paid by the tobacco companies to tell me that cigarettes are harmless.

I’m not going to pay attention to anyone who is associated with the environmentalist movement for the same reason I wouldn’t listen to a snake oil salesman.

The “legitimate scientists” and “experts” endlessly trotted out by the environmentalist movement are tainted and discredited.

On the one hand, we have “climate change”, meaning “the climate changes”. I would be surprised if you could find anyone who isn’t a complete ignoramus who would say that the climate does not change.

Ah, but there are more than a few. The minute they hear the words, “climate change”, they instantly jump out with it all being a hoax. They don’t even want to consider the fact that the climate has ALWAYS been changing, that this weather is exactly what Adam and Eve experienced and any “evidence” that things are different today than they were ten, twenty or even fifty years ago is pure bunk to them.

They would consider out current weather patterns to be “normal”. Perhaps they are, in the sense that over a long period of time the earth is bound to have seen these patterns over and over again, but they certainly aren’t the “norm.”

I know that a lot of people here don’t like the term, “global warming”, but the fact of the matter is the globe has been warming by fractions of a degree average. We have some solid records of average global temperatures going back 450,000 years (which will obviously fly in the face of those who think the earth is only 6000 years old) Since images are no longer able to post in the comments, I will have to resort to links to indicate how we are in a period of warming right now:

In fact, looking at the last graph, things appear to be pretty much on a regular cycle, time-wise.

Now we could throw in the possible “causes” for all of this, but to what end? In the past 425,000 years we’ve had five warming spells and four ice ages — including a few “little ice ages” in Northern Europe. There IS evidence that CO2 does play a role in the warming cycle but since this evidence predates modern human society, it is obvious that we aren’t the primary cause. That isn’t to say that our CO2 output doesn’t help the situation any, but I don’t think it matters all that much.

I am not going to be wringing my hands and wailing about how man is quickly moving us toward certain extinction because of anything we are doing. I personally am more concerned about some asteroid colliding with us long before that happens. I am sure we are probably in for more super storms and mayhem over the next hundred years or so, but for the most part we will adapt and weather the storm out. It will be our “norm” for a while.

My eyes tend to glass over when I hear the arguments on both sides about this matter. It is really hard to get people to take a deep breath and realize that a) yes, we are in the middle of a warming cycle; and b) it is normal and we didn’t cause it.

There are always going to be those people who think that we are greater than ourselves, that a) we can cause this shit; and therefore can b) change our behavior to prevent it. It is a helluva huge ego we have. (and I say “we” only as a description of the collective human species) Sure, we can really fuck the landscape up if we put our minds to it. But this ball of water and rock has outlived us by billions of years and has had MUCH worse tossed at it. We don’t even warrant the proverbial pimple on the ass of the planet all things considered.DJ Allyn recently posted..A Child’s Garden of Grass – Jack S. Margolis

The last I looked the laws of gravity was a theory also. Yet, there it is.

Last I looked, the laws of gravity were empirically-derived generalizations that had nothing whatever to do with theory, which is an explanation for an observable fact. But do say on.

The “theory” part of the equation is what is causing it.

Accepted.

I am certainly not going to listen to the oil company “scientists” and paid hacks to prove to me that this is all a farce, for the same reason I am not going to listen to the tobacco companies tell me that their products are harmless.

Two problems with this statement: First, science proves nothing. Anytime someone refers to “scientific proof” (or “settled science”) run like hell because what’s being discussed has nothing to do with science. Science is a process by which we derive testable explanations for observable phenomena. When it works correctly, the process tends toward explanations that provide us with a fuller understanding of the subject matter. It has nothing to do with establishing “proof.”

Second, outright dismissal of “paid hacks” runs both ways. If you get to discount “oil company ‘scientists’” someone else gets to sneer at Mann, Hansen and others who are “paid hacks” for the academic climate change grant-writing machine.

For the most part, the scientific community doesn’t really have an axe to grind other than trying to find the truth.

Bullshit. The scientific community is interested, first and foremost, in preserving their funding. “[T]rying to find the truth”, as you put it so naively, not only suggests there’s an Absolute Truth to be found, but that scientists would be willing to find it if it cost them their grants. They are not. Ask me how I know.

There’s an enormous body of crap research out there, most of it the product of “legitimate scientists.” Assuming anyone started now it would take decades to sort out the mess that’s been made of climatology (mostly the result of government funding of the discipline, I might add.) By that time time most of the “experts” in the field will be long retired or dead.

The oil companies have a profit motive that FAR outstretches any “profit” an environmentalist or politician could ever realize.

That’s a knee-slapper. I’ve known people who made entire, well-acclaimed (as in, Royal Society Member) academic careers out of complete rubbish. Climate change is big academic business these days, and tying your PhD or postdoc research to it is a sure way to keep the grants flowing and lock in your tenure.

You seem to assume an impartial, unbiased version of the process exists somewhere. It does not. It never has. Industry money and grant money spend just the same.

DJ, if you look on the timeline at a high enough resolution, you’ll see that the CO2 increase follows warming, by 500 to 800 years. Not precedes it (which would kind of be a prerequisite for the warming to be ’caused’ by CO2), not accompanies it, follows it.

Science, today, has become overspecialized and over-politicized. The fact is, most scientists are trained at Universities, these same educational institutions have a tendency toward Leftist bias, some of them very strongly so. Government directly or indirectly funds most research (often by funding or guaranteeing loans that are paid to the school). So, when a scientist studying climate patterns and the environment sees something funny, they have been more or less trained to see the Evil Capitalists as the cause. It’s axiomatic to them, almost as reflexive as a knee-jerk.

In some cases they are right. There are companies out there who have done serious harm to the world, of that there can be no doubt. But here’s the irony… Big Goverment outstrips them all in environmental harm.

Here are just a few examples of the Epic Fail of Government, where our environment is concerned.

1. Before the 1950s, The Government subsidized the hunting and trapping of Wolves by paying bounties on them. Wolves were driven nearly to extinction in the lower 48 states. By the 1980s, that same government had decided this was a bad idea, and began programs designed to reintroduce the Wolf into various parts of the country. So, the government decided to get rid of a species, then changes its mind, and sticks the taxpayer with the bill for BOTH programs.

2. The BP oil spill happened on a rig that had been signed off on by EPA inspectors. Looking back, you can figure someone’s palms got greased, or someone was incompetent (or both).

3. The number one dumper of toxic waste in this country, by historical aggregate, is the US Government.

4. Many features designed to decrease emissions on cars actually wind up doing more harm than good. The Catalytic converter has been demonstrated to be a failure in this regard. Government once ran subsidies (and may still, I’m not entirely sure) on hybrid cars, even though you would have to drive a Prius for an average of five years just to save enough gas to make up for the emissions released in building what is effectively TWO engines for one car. That says nothing about the chemicals in the batteries, either. Hybrid technology has a future, but the free market should decide when it’s ready for prime time, without government subsidy.

5. Corn subsidies and the government’s obsession with Ethanol (which burns dirtier and contains less energy) has resulted in engine damage, increased emissions from many cars (when they use the 10% blend common in much of the country) and it’s actually debatable whether or not this actually is a net production of energy. No one has taken a real accurate look at whether the energy burned by Corn Ethanol is actually greater than the energy required to grow and make it. And now the government wants to do a 15% blend, which could destroy existing engines not designed for it and will only generate MORE pollution.

6. China is one of the world’s worst polluters at the moment, yet the Kyoto Treaty and other related agreements specifically exempt China. Brilliant.

7. The obsession with eliminating Incandescent bulbs will make fluorescent bulbs, with their various environmentally unfriendly chemicals (including mercury) in abundance. One again, LEDs will probably replace both someday, perhaps sooner than we think, but why should Government get involved? It will only create more environmental damage, not less.

8. The government subsidized a major solar panel company that failed, to the tune of what, $500 million? Tell me, how does pissing that money away help the environment?

I could go on and on… but even if you believe in man-made climate change, which I believe to be inaccurate, then you should STILL be voting against the Leftists, from the fact that their policies are designed to deliver the appearance of a safer environment without having to bother with actually delivering it. It’s not that I don’t believe man has an effect on the environment, obviously we do in some fashion, I just argue that it’s almost impossible to isolate our contribution from natural forces, no matter what climate scientists tell you. You might be able to say, with some degree of accuracy, that average temperatures are going up, or down, in a given period. You may also be able to tell if mankind’s emissions of various sorts are increasing or decreasing during the same period, though this is probably more difficult to accurately quantify. But that doesn’t infer causality, and that’s where scientists, so eager to please their masters in the university system and in big government, have gone beyond the data and into politics and policy-making.

I am a man of science, and a man of God. Or, at least I try to be. I believe strongly in the scientific method, in cause and effect and Western civilization’s great history in technological and academic advancement. But today’s Leftists are, more and more often, treating science almost like a religion of its own. To the point that believing in God, many feel, means one CANNOT be a scientist. This has more in common with the Soviet Union’s axiomatic hostility toward religion (except metaphorical worship of the State) than any real application of logic and reason.

The Earth has a slightly irregular orbit. There are archeological records of hotter times, colder times, higher CO2 (which would not be the “problem” caused by man. CO, Carbon MONoxide, would.) and it is an absolutely normal cycle. Just like the galactic alignment, the polar shift, all that shit. Anybody ever read Herbert’s DUNE series? We are about to need that Foundation, do you hear me? Damn no “slaps forehead” emoticon. The whole Mayan thing? We don’t know what the hell that’s about. But TS will HTF sooner or later.LC cmblake6, Imperial Black Ops Technician recently posted..Two Thousandth Missile from Mexico Hits El Paso, Texas Area.

G Czar….you know I would not mean to insult a part of the bread basket!! My point was they get a buttload of tornadoes. I wish I had as much corn as they do…our crop this year was not as good as prior years.LC Draco recently posted..Message from Army Ranger Mojo Inc., 501(c)3

On the one hand, we have “climate change”, meaning “the climate changes”. I would be surprised if you could find anyone who isn’t a complete ignoramus who would say that the climate does not change.

Ah, but there are more than a few. The minute they hear the words, “climate change”, they instantly jump out with it all being a hoax. They don’t even want to consider the fact that the climate has ALWAYS been changing, that this weather is exactly what Adam and Eve experienced and any “evidence” that things are different today than they were ten, twenty or even fifty years ago is pure bunk to them.
They would consider out current weather patterns to be “normal”. Perhaps they are, in the sense that over a long period of time the earth is bound to have seen these patterns over and over again, but they certainly aren’t the “norm.”

I have little experience of such people, but I would certainly call them ignorant. Of course, their ignorance could just be living their entire lives in a relatively static micro-climate, so they never experience the climate changing. Here in the SW UK, I have seen the climate change across the last 20 years (definition used here: climate is what you expect, weather is what you get).

I know that a lot of people here don’t like the term, “global warming”, but the fact of the matter is the globe has been warming by fractions of a degree average. We have some solid records of average global temperatures going back 450,000 years (which will obviously fly in the face of those who think the earth is only 6000 years old) Since images are no longer able to post in the comments, I will have to resort to links to indicate how we are in a period of warming right now:
Here is a graph showing Average Global Temperatures from between 1860 and 2010

This is another example of what I was ranting about, the use of a narrative to warp the debate. You are correct, AFAIK, that the globe has warmed over the last 150 years. We’ve been coming out of the little ice age. However, due to the narrative, people hear “global warming” and use the concept “anthropocentric global warming”. The former is, allowing for inadequate records, probably correct over the timeframe we’re talking about. The latter, well, there is a lot more doubt there as to how much of the warming is man made.

What am I getting at? We can all help fight this narrative with just a little mental effort. When people misuse terms, due to the narratives, interpret their words literally. Do not let them get away with framing the debate this way.

Look through the comments on this thread. Note how the same terms are used, sometimes literally, sometimes referring to a narrative. This is the confusion that some wish to spread.

Remember the statistic that 97% of scientists believe in “climate change”? Personally I’m amazed that the figure isn’t 100%, given the wooly question that was asked. I think that 2 of the 77 who make up that statistic were thinking of the narrative definition of “climate change” and were speaking out against it. The remainder were either agreeing with the narrative or interpreting “climate change” literally.

(Ok, ok, I’m less amazed that the figure isn’t 100%, as those 77 responses were selected from over 3000 responses to make up the statistic. After all, if they reported 100%, people might be suspicious. /cynical)

The only thing that’s important to me regarding this global warming HOAX, is that thanks to these eco-luddites and their fucking useless micro-toilets, every time I take proper American shit outside of my home, it clogs up, and my cock’n balls dangle in the slurry. Also, thanks to these piss-stains in the dicking with my dish detergent, I cant get a clean glass to save my blazing life.

Every time I open my dishwasher or drop a deuce, I have to fight the growing urge to grab the first watermelon I see and hang them from the nearest tree. God knows they have it coming.

Buncha-self hating freaks, and if anything needs recycling, it’s them and their horseshit religion. WHEN it gets to the point we can ace these motherfuckers on sight for fucking with our light-bulbs and showers, I will consider this nation being on the road to liberty. It was a rather small Tax on tea that started the first revolution you fucking Marxist Nannies – still want to fuck with our creature comforts? Be my guest Prog, hell of alot of patriots out there who are just looking for a pretext to start collecting scalps.

co2 is good and so is warm weather.burning your food is always a bad idea which is why the democraps like it.coal oil is a much better fuel because it burns hot and clean just look at the air force studies on coal oil mixed with jp-8 but the dems don’t like it.fossil fuels are bad but unicorn farts are good because they don’t produce co2 which is good but the democraps hate co2.i think it is part of the carbon credit scam which is like the sub prime mortgage scam that freddy,franny and the democraps stuck us with.the housing crash was brought on by government interference in the market with the community reinvestment act now they want to fleece us with carbon credits which are sold by democraps.nice huh!!